The Frederick St protest and reaction

Ha Long Bay · 13-09-2018 04:46PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

So whats your point ?
The vehicle was not Tax'd , a quick check on line anyone can do will give you the answer , Takes about 30 seconds depending on your coverage

Who cares if it was taxed or what the thread depth of the tyres are, it has nothing to do with this conversation and adding nothing constructive to it.

13-09-2018 04:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so your immediate reaction is to dismiss the claim of racial abuse?

Absolutely not.

I'm skeptical about the claims made by the protestors, and cognisant of the fact that these were very left wing activists, I'm equally skeptical of certain claims made by Gardaí; it's rarely a good idea to swallow whole anything that is told to you.

How about you? I guess you would have believed the protestors if they had said this? No question?

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 04:48PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I cant.

You think they were under-dressed then, and should have been properly equipped to deal with getting a petrol bomb to the face?

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:50PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

You think they were under-dressed then, and should have been properly equipped to deal with getting a petrol bomb to the face?

well no. that is not what i think. I think they were correct to wear balaclavas and if regulations say they need to wear helmets with them then they should have worn helmets.

13-09-2018 04:50PM

john4321 wrote: »

Who cares if it was taxed or what the thread depth of the tyres are, it has nothing to do with this conversation and adding nothing constructive to it.

Except that the issues mentioned above are criminal matters, to be enforced by Gardaí, and an eviction is (what's that phrase the Civil Authority is so famous for ..?) "a civil matter".

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 04:51PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Except that the issues mentioned above are criminal matters, to be enforced by Gardaí, and an eviction is (what's that phrase the civil authority are so famous for ..?) "a civil matter".

the gardai were there to prevent public disorder which is a criminal matter.

Ha Long Bay · 13-09-2018 04:57PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Except that the issues mentioned above are criminal matters, to be enforced by Gardaí, and an eviction is (what's that phrase the Civil Authority is so famous for ..?) "a civil matter".

What did the Guards say when you reported it? No point bringing it up here.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:01PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Absolutely not.

I'm skeptical about the claims made by the protestors, and cognisant of the fact that these were very left wing activists, I'm equally skeptical of certain claims made by Gardaí; it's rarely a good idea to swallow whole anything that is told to you.

How about you? I guess you would have believed the protestors if they had said this? No question?

I repeated the claim in the article, nothing more. If you have an issue with the claim i'm not really the person to validate it. I know no more about it than you do. As to whether i believe the claim i have no reason not to. It is not one that he is likely to make lightly.

homerjay2005 · 13-09-2018 05:02PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No idea what was said. It was mentioned in the article that has been quoted over the last page or two.

its in the official garda statement released about the incident.

gardai also physically assaulted by a small number of people present (not the occupiers, but hangers on).

yourdeadwright · 13-09-2018 05:06PM

john4321 wrote: »

yourdeadwright wrote: »

So whats your point ?
The vehicle was not Tax'd , a quick check on line anyone can do will give you the answer , Takes about 30 seconds depending on your coverage

Who cares if it was taxed or what the thread depth of the tyres are, it has nothing to do with this conversation and adding nothing constructive to it.

Obviously the person who asked the question cares,
So in you own word, Your comment has nothing to do with the conversation and adding nothing constructive to it,

end of the road · 13-09-2018 05:11PM

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

Why should you, an anonymous poster on a Internet forum be entitled to know the identities of people who are involved in something that has nothing to do with you?

because these people were involved in an act of law enforcement, a large step up from the usual jobs private security are involved in.
the gardai are expected to be identifiable via wearing a badge, private security working on a door or elsewhere are obligated to be identifiable. therefore these people should be no different. we don't need to know their names and addresses, but the company and their badge number, the people at that protest are absolutely entitled to know. just because it had nothing to do with me personally doesn't change any of this.

DwightSchrute1 wrote: »

So you think every citizen of this country have a right to know the identities of those men? That would set a very dangerous precedent if that was the case.

the identity of what these men are exactly, the company who employs them, and what legal standing they actually have, then if private security or some sort of private bailiff, then absolutely. that wouldn't set any dangerous precedent. if people use such information to get the exact identity of these men (name and address) and use that to target them, there are remedies in law to deal with that and they should and will be used.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean the men there to execute a court order? those guys? You would prefer they were not there?

absolutely. a state agency should be doing that job. they would be highly regulated and people would know what these people do and who exactly they work for and what their powers are and their legal standing.
with this lot that were at this (and probably other evictions) we know nothing of who they are, their actual legal standing, whether they are even private security in the first place.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were the people in the van irish citizens? if not then your point is irrelevant.

we don't know because unlike the gardai, they were completely unidentifiable.

13-09-2018 05:11PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I repeated the claim in the article, nothing more. If you have an issue with the claim i'm not really the person to validate it.

i'm pretty sure that if I repeated the claim about Gardaí causing injury to activists, who then required hospitalisation, people would quite rightly pull me up on that claim.

I haven't made such a claim, because i'm skeptical towards it. Frankly, I'm also skeptical about the claims of racial abuse. I would have thought most people with an ounce of common sense would be exercising skepticism towards the claims made on both sides of this encounter.

homerjay2005 · 13-09-2018 05:12PM

end of the road wrote: »

we don't know because unlike the gardai, they were completely unidentifiable.

and that is the way it should be. there is no need for individual people, carrying out law enforcement duties, to have their names and photos plastered all over social media.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:13PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

i'm pretty sure that if I repeated the claim about Gardaí causing injury to activists, who then required hospitalisation, people would quite rightly pull me up on that claim.

I haven't made such a claim, because i'm skeptical towards it. Frankly, I'm also skeptical about the claims of racial abuse. I would have thought most people with an ounce of common sense would be exercising skepticism towards the claims made on both sides of this encounter.

good of you to cut off half of my post.

oholly121 · 13-09-2018 05:14PM

Dont speak ill of the Bill

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 05:15PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no. that is not what i think. I think they were correct to wear balaclavas and if regulations say they need to wear helmets with them then they should have worn helmets.

It's not just the regulations; basic common sense dictates that if there is a need to protect your face from fire, then there is an even greater need to protect your eyes. Do you think they were correct to wear balaclavas because of the risk of being burned, or for some other unofficial reason?

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:16PM

I get emails from uplift.ie because i have supported a couple of their campaigns. They've just sent me one on the topic at hand. it starts off with

This week, we saw Gardaí in balaclavas allow violent men assault peaceful protesters. [1] While these images were shocking, it’s nothing new. After decades of corruption, abuse and cover-ups, this week’s events are almost expected.

The [1] footnote leads to two articles in the irish times. Neither article mentions the gardai allowing the men in balaclavas to assault peaceful protestors. It is the last time uplift.ie get any support from me.

end of the road · 13-09-2018 05:16PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

If these Frederick Crusties went out, got jobs and paid a bit of tax into the public coffers rather than wasting State resources with their bullsh;ttery, we'd have a better chance of solving the so called 'housing crisis'.

Bunch of wasters the lot of them.

do you know they don't have jobs? i certainly don't, because being able to protest isn't proof of whether one does or doesn't have a job.

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

These types are very active on social media. Of course the guards had to protect their identity.

Would anyone here want to have their families targeted by this mob?

they are supposed to wear a helmet with their hood. they didn't, so therefore had no reason to be covering up. if they had a reason, they would have worn the helmet.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:16PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

It's not just the regulations; basic common sense dictates that if there is a need to protect your face from fire, then there is an even greater need to protect your eyes. Do you think they were correct to wear balaclavas because of the risk of being burned, or for some other unofficial reason?

the balaclavas were not to protect their faces from fire. this has already been clarified for you.

BarryD2 · 13-09-2018 05:17PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

My parents were able to get into a scheme, with a single earner, less then average wage, to buy a house, where the repayment was set to 20% of highest salary (didn't matter if both were earning). That was only 35 years ago. But now, not a hope.

You need 2 high incomes, or 1 very high income to think about being able to get somewhere to live. Regardless of renting or buying.

Anything less then that is "social housing" and mixed in with people who sponge about on social welfare. Those are 2 very separate groupings, but with the same essential needs. The push needs to be on "who is charged with developing affordable housing" because by the looks of things, that may not be profitable. Which also begs the question... why?

Sounds like your parents were availing of some sort of LA scheme? That was part of the 'social housing' provision of the day.

Regardless I agree that we need to move back to a situation where a single regular income should suffice to get a long term mortgage loan to buy family accommodation. But that single income has long been average and above, I think. Of course, if people were prepared to put their own backs into building/ renovating their own houses - smaller incomes are quite manageable.

uptherebels · 13-09-2018 05:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

because these people were involved in an act of law enforcement, a large step up from the usual jobs private security are involved in.
the gardai are expected to be identifiable via wearing a badge, private security working on a door or elsewhere are obligated to be identifiable. therefore these people should be no different. we don't need to know their names and addresses, but the company and their badge number, the people at that protest are absolutely entitled to know. just because it had nothing to do with me personally doesn't change any of this.

the identity of what these men are exactly, the company who employs them, and what legal standing they actually have, then if private security or some sort of private bailiff, then absolutely. that wouldn't set any dangerous precedent. if people use such information to get the exact identity of these men (name and address) and use that to target them, there are remedies in law to deal with that and they should and will be used.

except they weren't private security so the people at the protest aren't entitled to anything.
Those remedies aren't much comfort to the families of guards when names and addresses are already on social media, prevention is better than remedy;)

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 05:18PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the balaclavas were not to protect their faces from fire. this has already been clarified for you.

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

uptherebels · 13-09-2018 05:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

do you know they don't have jobs? i certainly don't, because being able to protest isn't proof of whether one does or doesn't have a job.

they are supposed to wear a helmet with their hood. they didn't, so therefore had no reason to be covering up. if they had a reason, they would have worn the helmet.

they did have a reason, to stop their pictures being posted on social media, you do understand the difference between a helmet and a balaclava

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:20PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing. this has already been clarified.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 05:21PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing. this has already been clarified.

I'm asking you to clarify it again. Why won't you do that? It's a simple question.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:22PM

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

I'm asking you to clarify it again. Why won't you do that? It's a simple question.

what point are you trying to make? I've already told you the answer.

yourdeadwright · 13-09-2018 05:23PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

That's what they're officially used for. Are you suggesting that they were being used for some other non-standard purpose?

perhaps you should do more reading and less writing. this has already been clarified.

Lets not play silly buggers ,They where used to hide there identity nothing else, regardless of what the official line is, Surely in this country we are past believing everything the Garda tell us,
Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me,

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-09-2018 05:24PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what point are you trying to make? I've already told you the answer.

I'm being nice and giving you an opportunity to come up with a less spurious reason than 'protecting their identity', which would be a total misuse of balaclavas and very much against The Rules.

ohnonotgmail · 13-09-2018 05:25PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Lets not play silly buggers ,They where used to hide there identity nothing else, regardless of what the official line is, Surely in this country we are past believing everything the Garda tell us,
Fool me once shame on you , fool me twice shame on me,

I have already said this. you and your mate avon seem to have not read my posts before replying.

end of the road · 13-09-2018 05:26PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

and that is the way it should be. there is no need for individual people, carrying out law enforcement duties, to have their names and photos plastered all over social media.

it's absolutely not the way it should be. if gardai are expected to cary identification in the form of a badge, private security are expected to have a form of identification, then these private individuals who are working in a law enforcement capacity, should be identifiable. civil law or criminal law are both law, and those enforcing it whether state or private should have identification as to what their exact job description is, and which company they work for. there is absolutely no way, that there should be masked unidentifiable individuals carying out evictions, who nobody has any idea of what they are or who exactly employs them. if one of those men for example, asalted someone, then how the hell would a prosecution be brought? if it turns out the gards didn't actually know who these men were, which is a possibility that couldn't be ruled out, then essentially we have a situation where the right to fair justice has been circumvented.

The Frederick St protest and reaction

Comments